Huntingdon Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service, or if placed in an emergency as soon as possible. The needs assessments were used to inform people’s care plans and risk assessments which were kept under review. The manager told us how they ensured they were able to meet people’s needs before they began to use the service. Staff told us they were informed about people’s needs before they began using the service to help with the transition.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation but did not always follow current evidence-based good practice and standards. Care plans and related records showed some consideration and reflection of current legislation and best practice guidance, although further work was needed to develop care records further to reflect this. For example, the development of positive behaviour strategies and specific health needs. Additionally, staff did not always follow the provider's medication processes and procedures. The home provided a range of activities, including both mental and physical stimulation. Activities ranged from visiting animals and outside groups and support to follow cultural needs. People’s comments included, “There are so many (activities). Reading club, Walking Club, and film showings” and “There are ladies that do the activities. There’s bingo, puzzles, colouring and crafts. These happen most days but not at the weekends.”

The provider worked well across teams and was developing relationships with external agencies to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The management team understood how to seek support from health and social care staff when required. External professionals provided mixed views about the service which reflected relationships were still being developed at the time of our inspection. Where relationships were positive, professionals felt able to make suggestions to the manager and said their professional advice was followed. Care staff said they received a handover at the start of each shift, which provided them with all necessary information about people. Staff described a positive team working environment.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Care plans included information about people’s medication and past medical history. People were happy with the meals they received but improvements were needed to ensure people were consistently supported. For example, people were provided with options and choices but were not always provided with support to eat their meals. We saw 2 people who were struggling to eat sausages that staff had not cut into bite size pieces. We also saw a staff member standing over a person to support them to eat their meal. This did not afford the person dignified or personalised support. People were provided with drinks throughout our inspection visits and records showed staff encouraged people to drink enough fluids each day.

The provider had systems to routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent. Further development of the use of these systems was needed to ensure they were fully effective. For example, outcomes of interventions were recorded on monitoring records to ensure these were effective in supporting people when they became distressed. However, these records were not consistent or sufficiently robust to provide oversight and assurance of outcomes for people. Monitoring records of people’s fluid intake were used where they were at risk of poor hydration. However, records did not demonstrate what actions had been taken if a person had not consumed their daily fluid intake. The registered manager told us they had addressed this inconsistency following our inspection visit.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these. People told us they were able to make choices about how and when care was provided and that if they declined care this was offered again at a later time. For example, when asked if staff asked for consent, a person told us, “Yes, they do.” We saw staff offered people choices and respected their decisions throughout our inspection visit. Staff demonstrated they understood their responsibilities in relation to consent and that people had the right to refuse the care being offered, in which case they said they would try later or ask a different staff member to try. Where people were unable to make informed decisions such as in respect of medication or aspects of their care, there was not always recorded evidence of decision specific Mental Capacity Act assessments and assurance that best interest decisions were followed.